August 19, 2013

Re-engaging Washington

Has the United States forgotten about grand strategy? All indications point,
for the moment, to US grand strategy being on the backburner. However you slice
it, President Barack Obama's preoccupations, the secretary of state's travel
schedule and the Republican rhetoric suggest that Washington has only two real
policy priorities today.

The first is jobs. The US economy may be recovering, but decreasing
unemployment from the current 7.4 per cent to pre-crisis levels of 4.5-5 per
cent is at the core of Obama's political agenda. Strategic matters — defence
partnerships, nuclear commerce, and international trade and economic agreements
— have been subordinated to job creation. India is bearing the brunt, whether on
intellectual property rights, market access, migration, nuclear liability or
defence sales, and New Delhi is now a prime target of criticism not just from
the White House, but from narrowly focused department bureaucracies and the US
Congress.

The second US priority is counter-terrorism (CT), as exemplified by the
recent closure of US missions from Pakistan to Mauritania, and the
administration's response to revelations about its surveillance activities.
Military operations in Afghanistan are now seen primarily through a CT lens.
Barring an attack on American targets or interests, a US withdrawal from
Afghanistan is deemed acceptable, regardless of the consequences for regional
stability or Indian sensitivities.

India must appreciate that these are the current realities of US engagement,
however distasteful. But rather than contributing to bureaucratic gridlock,
these ought to provide India with leverage. Few other countries offer the US the
ability to alleviate both its near-term economic and security concerns. India
remains among the largest potential destinations for US exports and investment,
and shares US desires to disrupt terrorist activities post-2014.

But it is important to acknowledge that Washington's obsessive focus on
unemployment and terrorism is also temporary. The present circumstances have
been brought about by a combination of economic realities, political and
military constraints, and personnel, all of which are ephemeral. As Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh gets set for his valedictory visit to the US next month,
he ought to be focused on overriding short-term differences while keeping the
long-term picture in mind.

What does that long-term picture look like? If the past 60 years are anything
to go by, it is one in which the US bounces back stronger. Book publishers and
television talk shows may still be peddling stories of inexorable American
decline, but the US has rebounded from much more adverse circumstances in the
past. It has unique demographic advantages among developed states, which, when
coupled with its institutions, entrepreneurship and natural resources, offer it
a remarkable ability to preserve its leadership position in global affairs.
Under the right circumstances, that could play to India's advantage.

In 2005, when India was a nuclear pariah led by a loose coalition and had an
economy 40 per cent of its current size, the US took a gamble on its future. It
did not seek immediate returns, but calculated that a more robust India was both
inevitable and served American interests. That, in turn, led to a conscious
decision to facilitate India's rise. That calculation overrode the objections
and doubts of naysayers within the US government and across the international
community.

India now has an opportunity to reciprocate. Amid its own economic
difficulties and political uncertainty, it faces a choice. It can continue
drawing red lines in various on-going bilateral negotiations with Washington,
playing for time while hoping for more favourable terms down the road. But if it
believes that an American resurgence is likely and beneficial to Indian
interests, it cannot afford to be bogged down in bureaucratic tu-tu-main-main.